On November 24, 2025, the United States took a dramatic and unprecedented step, officially designating Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his government as a foreign terrorist organization. This move, announced by President Donald Trump just a week prior, places Maduro alongside notorious groups such as al-Qaida and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to reporting by ABC News. The designation marks a sharp escalation in U.S. policy toward Venezuela—a country long viewed by Washington as a source of regional instability, but never before labeled in such stark terms.
The consequences of this decision are already reverberating across Latin America and in diplomatic circles worldwide. Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on November 17, insisted that the new label gives him authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela. Legal experts, however, cast doubt on that claim, noting that the designation is typically used to justify financial sanctions, immigration restrictions, and other law enforcement measures, not open warfare. The Congressional Research Service has made it clear that the list’s primary purpose is to support these non-military penalties in pursuit of national security goals.
Yet, for the Trump administration, the rhetoric has shifted unmistakably toward military options. Since early September, U.S. forces have carried out more than 20 strikes on suspected drug vessels near Venezuela’s coast, resulting in at least 80 deaths, as reported by the International Business Times. The U.S. government accuses Maduro of heading the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," a term referring to corrupt Venezuelan officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking. Curiously, this cartel does not appear in the Drug Enforcement Administration’s annual National Drug Threat Assessment or the United Nation’s World Drug Report, raising questions about the evidentiary basis for the claim.
Maduro, for his part, has denied any involvement in drug trafficking and continues to call for diplomacy. When pressed by reporters about what Maduro could do to placate the U.S., Trump offered little clarity. “You know, the question’s a little bit tricky,” he said on November 17. “I don’t think it was meant to be tricky. It’s just that, look, he’s done tremendous damage of our country, primarily because of drugs,” Trump argued, also blaming the Venezuelan regime for the release of prisoners into the United States—a claim that independent experts say is unsupported by evidence.
The debate over next steps is fierce and divided. Some in Washington, like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, argue that “nothing’s off the table, but nothing’s automatically on the table,” leaving open the possibility of further military escalation. Others warn that the U.S. has no clear plan for what comes after Maduro, should military action succeed in removing him from power. “Any post-Maduro government will live or die based on the amount of security cooperation the United States is willing to provide,” said Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to ABC News. The risk, Ziemer cautioned, is that a rapid regime change without a detailed plan could leave a dangerous power vacuum—one that might easily spiral into violence and chaos.
These concerns are not hypothetical. During Trump’s first term, U.S. officials conducted an unclassified war game exercise to model the potential fallout from Maduro’s removal. The results were grim: military factions, political groups, and armed guerrillas would likely scramble for control, producing sustained instability across the country, according to The New York Times. Phil Gunson of the International Crisis Group didn’t mince words, calling expectations of a smooth transition “fantasy.”
Douglas Farah, a national security consultant who participated in several U.S. war games, echoed this view, warning that “you can’t have an immediate seismic shift” in Venezuela without severe consequences, including the collapse of command structures. His 2019 analysis predicted “chaos for a sustained period of time with no possibility of ending it.”
Inside Venezuela, the situation is equally complex. Retired officers report that the country’s armed forces operate at roughly one-third of their former capacity, with minimal air readiness and a communications system described as “practically collapsed,” according to the Miami Herald. Exiled Venezuelan officers have been blunt: defending against a U.S. attack “would be suicide,” and many believe that government negotiations are simply a stalling tactic to buy time.
In this charged environment, some analysts are advocating for creative, non-military solutions. On November 18, José Morales-Arilla, a professor at Mexico’s Tecnológico de Monterrey, published an article in Caracas Chronicles urging President Trump to offer credible exit strategies to Venezuela’s ruling elite. Morales-Arilla’s proposal is a two-tiered plan: safe passage for Maduro and officials responsible for crimes against humanity, and amnesty for those not directly tied to such crimes. In an interview, he explained, “They know that the history of other dictatorships shows that if Venezuela returns to democracy, they will be prosecuted for their crimes regardless of whatever promises are made to them today.” The plan’s goal is to fracture Maduro’s coalition and encourage defections among insiders who might otherwise cling to power.
Francisco Rodriguez, a senior researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has floated an alternative: brokering a power-sharing agreement between Maduro and the opposition. Writing in Foreign Affairs on November 17, Rodriguez argued that “airstrikes alone have never driven a leader from office,” and that “a show of force will probably not be enough to bring down Maduro’s regime.” Instead, he suggested that the United States use its leverage to push both sides toward a negotiated settlement, carving out quotas for the opposition in key government branches. However, Rodriguez acknowledged that previous attempts at such deals have failed, with Maduro accused of reneging on promises once the immediate threat passed.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition is preparing for the possibility of a democratic transition. Edmundo González Urrutia, who won the 2024 election by a landslide and is backed by exiled opposition leader María Corina Machado, is recognized by some as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. David Smolansky, deputy director of international affairs for Machado, told ABC News that the opposition is “ready to provide Venezuelans an orderly and democratic transition.” Yet, the challenges ahead are daunting: any new government will need U.S. security cooperation, help reforming the armed forces, and intelligence support to survive in the post-Maduro era.
With the largest U.S. warship now stationed in the Caribbean, the stakes could hardly be higher. Trump’s next move remains uncertain, and while some urge a combination of military pressure and smart diplomacy, others fear a repeat of past U.S. interventions gone awry. For now, Venezuela stands at a crossroads, its future hanging in the balance as Washington weighs its options and the world watches closely.